Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a transgender woman, was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and prescribed hormone replacement therapy (HRT) while detained at the Oklahoma County jail. After being transferred to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), she continued her HRT regimen. However, upon her transfer to the Dick Conner Correctional Center, a staff psychologist evaluated her and concluded she did not have gender dysphoria. Based on this evaluation, the prison physician at the Davis Correctional Facility, where she was subsequently transferred, decided to taper and discontinue her HRT.The plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the prison physician and the health services administrator. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference because the discontinuation of HRT was in compliance with correctional policy, which required a confirmed diagnosis of gender dysphoria for HRT to continue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not act with deliberate indifference by discontinuing the plaintiff’s HRT based on the psychologist’s evaluation and the correctional policy. The court found no evidence that the defendants knew or strongly suspected that the psychologist’s diagnosis was incorrect. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s disagreement with the diagnosis and the course of treatment did not constitute a constitutional violation. The court also rejected the argument that the defendants were required to arrange for a second evaluation, as there was no indication that they suspected the initial diagnosis was wrong. View "Johnson v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The case involves the Estate of Charles Anthony Hurtado, which brought an action against Dr. Jerry A. Smith, alleging that Dr. Smith acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Hurtado’s serious medical needs. Mr. Hurtado, an inmate, was treated for a perineal abscess at a medical center where Dr. Smith performed a diagnostic needle aspiration but did not find an abscess cavity. Dr. Smith prescribed oral antibiotics and pain medication, and Mr. Hurtado was discharged. Later that evening, Mr. Hurtado returned to the emergency room with intense pain, was diagnosed with sepsis, and underwent surgery. He was later transferred to another hospital where he died from complications related to the abscess and other health issues.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Smith. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Dr. Smith knew of and disregarded a significant risk to Mr. Hurtado’s health. The court concluded that even if Dr. Smith’s diagnosis and treatment were incorrect, they did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference but were, at most, medical negligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that there was no evidence from which a jury could infer that Dr. Smith consciously disregarded a substantial risk to Mr. Hurtado’s health. The court noted that Dr. Smith’s treatment was not patently unreasonable and that the expert testimony provided by the plaintiff did not establish deliberate indifference but rather suggested medical negligence. The court emphasized that deliberate indifference requires more than a misdiagnosis or negligence; it requires a showing that the medical professional knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate’s health. View "Estate of Hurtado v. Smith" on Justia Law

Corey McNellis, a former Athletic Director and Assistant Principal at Ponderosa High School in the Douglas County School District (DCSD), was placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated after expressing reservations about a school play, "The Laramie Project," in a staff email chain. McNellis offered to add a "Christian perspective" to the production, which led to his investigation and termination.McNellis sued DCSD in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Colorado law. The district court dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that McNellis failed to state a plausible claim for relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of McNellis's First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that his speech was made pursuant to his official duties and not as a private citizen. The court also affirmed the dismissal of his retaliation claims under Title VII and CADA, finding that McNellis failed to plausibly allege a causal connection between his complaints about the investigation and his termination.However, the Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of McNellis's discrimination claims under Title VII and CADA. The court found that McNellis had plausibly alleged that his termination was linked to his religious comments, which could give rise to an inference of discrimination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "McNellis v. Douglas County School District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued multiple officers from the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and Grand Junction Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. The officers executed a search warrant for a stolen Sno-Cat at Plaintiff's property, which included a garage and an attached residence. Believing the Sno-Cat was in the garage, officers obtained a search warrant and returned with SWAT units. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they fired chemical munitions into the residence, causing significant property damage. The search revealed no humans, only a dog, and Plaintiff claimed over $50,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, granting qualified immunity to the defendants. The court relied on documents outside the complaint, including a search warrant, supporting affidavit, and an after-action report (AAR), despite Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which the district court also dismissed, again granting qualified immunity and considering the same external documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court erred by considering the AAR without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and allowing for discovery. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff plausibly alleged individual actions by each defendant and that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant by entering the residence, which could not house the Sno-Cat. The court also found that the officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by failing to knock and announce their presence and using excessive force without exigent circumstances. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cuervo v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

In May 2018, Brian Estrada, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), attempted to escape from a courthouse while shackled. He was shot three times by Jacob Smart, a CDOC officer. Estrada filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smart, concluding that Estrada had failed to exhaust all available CDOC administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado found that Estrada did not follow CDOC’s three-step grievance process regarding the shooting incident. Estrada argued that the courthouse was not a CDOC prison, and thus, the PLRA did not apply to his case. The district court disagreed, ruling that the PLRA and CDOC’s grievance procedures applied to the shooting of a CDOC inmate by a CDOC officer, regardless of the location.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies broadly to all inmate suits about prison life, including incidents occurring outside the prison walls, such as the courthouse shooting. The court also determined that CDOC’s grievance procedures were applicable to the incident, as they cover actions by employees and incidents affecting inmates, even outside the facility. The court concluded that Estrada’s failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies barred his § 1983 claim. View "Estrada v. Smart" on Justia Law

The case involves a civil rights suit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Peatinna Biggs, an intellectually disabled prisoner, against Sedgwick County, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Hanna in his individual and official capacities. Biggs alleged that Sheriff Hanna sexually assaulted her while transporting her between county jails. The district court dismissed the complaint against the County and the Sheriff’s Department, reasoning that the County could only be liable if the challenged conduct had been taken pursuant to a policy adopted by the official or officials, and Hanna’s actions were not pursuant to Department policies, but in direct contravention of them. Hanna was then found liable by a jury in his individual capacity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Sheriff Hanna’s actions fell within the scope of his policymaking authority regarding the custody and care of prisoners and subjected the municipal defendants to liability. The court reasoned that when an official takes action over which he or she has final policymaking authority, the policymaker is the municipality, so it is fair to impose liability on that entity for that action. The court concluded that given that Hanna raped a prisoner in his custody while transporting the prisoner to another jail, that requirement was undoubtedly satisfied. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Whitson v. Hanna" on Justia Law

The case involves a § 1983 excessive-force action brought by Marta Sanchez, the Estate of Stephanie Lopez, and Dominic Martinez against officers from the Littleton and Englewood Police Departments in Colorado. The plaintiffs alleged that the officers fired 66 bullets into their motionless vehicle while they were attempting to surrender, resulting in the death of Stephanie Lopez, severe injuries to Dominic Martinez, and rendering Marta Sanchez a paraplegic. The defendants, however, described a high-speed car chase following an armed carjacking, during which the plaintiffs allegedly used their vehicle as a weapon and endangered the public.The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden on the clearly established law issue. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a record-based factual universe upon which the court could conduct a clearly established law analysis. The court held that the plaintiffs effectively waived their review of their challenge to the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the defendants. The court concluded that without a record-based factual universe reflecting the plaintiffs' version of events, it could not opine on whether the district court committed reversible error in concluding that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the clearly established law prong of the qualified-immunity test. View "Sanchez v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the death of Daryl Clinton, who died in the Oklahoma County Jail four days after being booked. Clinton was arrested for driving under the influence and was evaluated at a hospital before being discharged and sent to jail. Despite reporting several health issues, including an inability to move his arms or upper body, Clinton's complaints were largely dismissed by medical personnel. He was found unresponsive in his cell and later pronounced dead at the hospital. The cause of death was listed as blunt force trauma to the cervical spine.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Equlla M. Brothers, the personal representative of Clinton's estate, filed a lawsuit against Tommie Johnson III, the Oklahoma County Sheriff, alleging that Johnson was deliberately indifferent to Clinton's serious medical needs, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied Johnson's motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Johnson.Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Brothers argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the verdict, the jury instructions misled the jury on the systemic failure claim, and the district court erred in denying her motion to contact the jury. However, the appellate court found that Brothers had waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to raise a Rule 50(a) or 50(b) motion or argue plain error. The court also found that Brothers' objections to the jury instructions were waived as she had not distinctly stated her objections and grounds for them at the district court. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Brothers' motion to contact the jury. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Brothers v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This case arose from a raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Abel Ramirez-Peñaloza’s family home in Heber City, Utah. After Mr. Ramirez-Peñaloza was indicted for unlawful entry into the U.S., ICE officials attempted to arrest him at his home. During two searches of his home, officials detained and questioned his family members. The plaintiffs, some of Mr. Ramirez-Peñaloza’s family members who were detained during the searches, filed claims against the U.S. and the agents alleging Fourth Amendment and state law violations.The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims, but allowed three claims to go to trial, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers on the excessive use of force and false arrest claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the dismissed claims were barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) judgment bar, which precludes suits against federal employees after the entry of final judgment on a claim against the U.S. for an analogous cause of action. Since the district court entered final judgment in favor of the U.S. on the plaintiffs’ analogous FTCA claims, the claims against the individual defendants were barred. View "Ramirez v. Reddish" on Justia Law

The case involves three transgender individuals, Rowan Fowler, Allister Hall, and Carter Ray, who sued the Governor of Oklahoma, the Commissioner of Health for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, and the State Registrar of Vital Records. The plaintiffs challenged an executive order issued by the Governor that directed the Oklahoma State Department of Health to stop amending sex designations on birth certificates. The plaintiffs, who had obtained court orders directing that their sex designations on official documents be amended, had their applications for amended birth certificates denied by the Department of Health, citing the Governor's executive order.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that the policy violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the equal protection claim, but affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim. The court found that the policy of denying sex-designation amendments on birth certificates was not rationally related to any legitimate state interest and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that their involuntary disclosures of their transgender status amounted to state action. View "Fowler v. Stitt" on Justia Law